Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since its looking more and more likely we could lose the full season it got me thinking....What team(s) stand to lose the most from a locked out season? Im thinking teams with older stars could hurt, or teams that will lose a big player to free agency next year that won't get the last year out of them?
Lakers and Spurs come to mind since Kobe and Duncan are probably the oldest of the "elite" players (not sure if Duncan still fits in that category).
I am not exactly sure how contracts work in the event of a lockout, but I am guessing some teams might not get the last year out of some of the players and could walk right into free agency after....That could effect some teams negatively as well...
I think the suns could be impacted in quite a few ways - which is interesting because it seems like their owner is one of the more adament guys in this thing
they have one major draw at the gate in steve nash, they have a very popular older player in grant hill ....... the younger guys don't bring a ton on their own and the team will be in worse shape after a missed season - this may be the last year they could realistically cash in on some of these guys
then throw in the nature of the phoenix sports fan and how Sarver isn't popular here at all and I could see a huge blowback against them
Good call about the Suns, man is there a player that must be more pissed about the lockout than Grant Hill, seems like he is against all odds resurecting his career, and I think he might be the oldest player in the league now? I love watching him play, reason #8392 why the lockout sucks.
Good call about the Suns, man is there a player that must be more pissed about the lockout than Grant Hill, seems like he is against all odds resurecting his career, and I think he might be the oldest player in the league now? I love watching him play, reason #8392 why the lockout sucks.
Easily Sacramento! They were on the verge of leaving before this season.
Economically speaking not the Kings. The Maloofs are praying that there is no season. No season means no paying out payroll. The Maloofs don't have too much going on other than basketball. They sold their cash cow New Mexico beer distributorship to raise money to save their Palms Casino in Las Vegas from creditors and they ended up losing all of it but 2%. The team in the last few seasons has been losing money.
I think the Lakers have more to lose. The owners' total wealth/earnings is basically from the Lakers. With no season there's no money to be made EVEN with their high payroll. They earn lots of money with television. The same goes with the other few owners that make money primarily on their NBA team. The teams that lose money don't want a season.
Economically speaking not the Kings. The Maloofs are praying that there is no season. No season means no paying out payroll. The Maloofs don't have too much going on other than basketball. They sold their cash cow New Mexico beer distributorship to raise money to save their Palms Casino in Las Vegas from creditors and they ended up losing all of it but 2%. The team in the last few seasons has been losing money.
I think the Lakers have more to lose. The owners' total wealth/earnings is basically from the Lakers. With no season there's no money to be made EVEN with their high payroll. They earn lots of money with television. The same goes with the other few owners that make money primarily on their NBA team. The teams that lose money don't want a season.
-Cheers.
The question was about losing the most. If there is no season the Lakers wont be making their $$$ like they normally do but they wont go under. The Kings can't say the same thing. Their organization can fold. A profit is always better than a loss and the Lakers obviously make more money per year based on ticket sales, memorabilia, concessions,etc...but the Lakers have enough money to survive. So even if they lost millions more than the Kings from a financial standpoint, losing a team is a greater loss.
The question was about losing the most. If there is no season the Lakers wont be making their $$$ like they normally do but they wont go under. The Kings can't say the same thing. Their organization can fold. A profit is always better than a loss and the Lakers obviously make more money per year based on ticket sales, memorabilia, concessions,etc...but the Lakers have enough money to survive. So even if they lost millions more than the Kings from a financial standpoint, losing a team is a greater loss.
I did state my opinion was based from an economical standpoint. I didn't say the Lakers would go under. I said they would lose more revenue/profits if there's no season than the Kings. The Lakers earn much more money than the Kings so they would lose more money. This doesn't mean the Lakers will go under. The Lakers and their ownership are wealthy. I also mentioned the Kings' owners' financial state, too. Not good. If they're losing money with the team and are rumored to be broke why would they want to continue losing money with the season going on? The lockout buys them time. Maybe they look for a buyer? Sacramento for the most part doesn't care about basketball anymore. The attendance figures prove that. They used to sell out every game... for 8 straight seasons. If the Sacramento folks did care about the Kings the team would already be playing downtown in a new arena. Hardly a loss for most.
I did state my opinion was based from an economical standpoint. I didn't say the Lakers would go under. I said they would lose more revenue/profits if there's no season than the Kings. The Lakers earn much more money than the Kings so they would lose more money. This doesn't mean the Lakers will go under. The Lakers and their ownership are wealthy. I also mentioned the Kings' owners' financial state, too. Not good. If they're losing money with the team and are rumored to be broke why would they want to continue losing money with the season going on? The lockout buys them time. Maybe they look for a buyer? Sacramento for the most part doesn't care about basketball anymore. The attendance figures prove that. They used to sell out every game... for 8 straight seasons. If the Sacramento folks did care about the Kings the team would already be playing downtown in a new arena. Hardly a loss for most.
-Cheers.
The locals fought for the team to stay so this could have potentially been a big ticket sales year for the team. The same thing has been happening with my NY Islanders. The word is that they might move the team to a place like Anaheim or someplace else too to save them but no season makes them the biggest loser, just like the OP asked.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
